United States v. Tanaka, 20-50171

Tanaka pleaded guilty to production and possession of child pornography after admitting he repeatedly raped and recorded a 14‑year‑old he was babysitting (also began sexual contact when she was 12).
Videos and flash drives contained recordings of rape and forced oral sex in which the victim can be heard telling Tanaka ‘no’ and ‘stop’; PSR attributed over 600 images/videos to Tanaka.
PSR calculated an adjusted offense level of 42 for production, added +5 under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.5 (pattern of prohibited sexual conduct), and gave a -3 for acceptance, yielding total offense level 43 and a Guidelines range capped by statutory maxima resulting in an aggregate 480‑month term (360 + 120 consecutive).
At sentencing the district court adopted the PSR, imposed the 480‑month aggregate sentence and concurrent lifetime supervised release terms; Tanaka lodged no objections at sentencing and appealed.
On appeal Tanaka argued (1) the § 2G2.1(b)(4) four‑level enhancement (sadistic/violent depiction) was erroneous, and (2) the sentence was procedurally unreasonable for failing to state reasons or consider § 3553(a); court reviewed for plain error and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2G2.1(b)(4) enhancement applies (images portray sadistic/violent conduct)	Gov't: videos show rape, forced oral sex, coercion and filming despite verbal protests—an objective viewer would see contemporaneous humiliation/pain, so enhancement applies	Tanaka: recordings are not objectively sadistic/masochistic or violent	Affirmed: enhancement proper—objective viewer could perceive contemporaneous subjugation, distress, humiliation; no clear error
Whether sentence was procedurally unreasonable for failure to state reasons / consider § 3553(a)	Gov't: within‑Guidelines sentence presumptively requires little additional explanation; district court adopted PSR and sentence fell within Guidelines	Tanaka: court failed to state reasons and consider § 3553(a), so procedural error requiring reversal	Affirmed: review for plain error; within‑Guidelines sentence and defendant failed to show that lack of fuller explanation affected substantial rights, so no reversible error

United States v. Mecham, 950 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2020) (defines ‘sadistic’ as what an objective observer would perceive as causing contemporaneous physical or emotional pain)
United States v. Nesmith, 866 F.3d 677 (5th Cir. 2017) (enhancement focuses on portrayal to an objective viewer)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plain‑error review requires clear or obvious forfeited error affecting substantial rights)
United States v. Torres‑Magana, 938 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 2019) (district court may credit unrefuted PSR/victim statements)
United States v. Mares, 402 F.3d 511 (5th Cir. 2005) (when judge imposes within‑Guidelines sentence and says so, little explanation is required)
United States v. Coto‑Mendoza, 986 F.3d 583 (5th Cir. 2021) (clarifies preservation standard for procedural sentencing challenges)